44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 24, 2022 11:00AM
- Oct/24/22 12:16:30 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, all parliamentarians in Quebec voted in favour of a motion stating that Quebec should have predominant jurisdiction over the environment. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the division of powers in environmental matters.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 12:16:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, there is a very important role for the provinces to play. Certainly, we can see that the environment in Quebec is much different from the environment in Saskatchewan. A policy that may work in Quebec probably will not work in Saskatchewan, and one that works in Saskatchewan might not work in Quebec.
I think when the government tries to take a one-size-fits-all approach, it does not work. We need to have policy that works with the provinces and not against them. I would like to see the government taking a better approach that enables the provinces to be the masters of their own domain.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:19:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are on the same page. In fact, in my speech I was talking about what has been enshrined in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms since 2006, namely the right to a healthful environment and healthy biodiversity.
It is only natural for a nation to choose to enshrine that in its own legislation. It is good that Canada wants to do that. However, as I said earlier, it has to walk the walk so that we can truly have the right to a healthy environment.
When I see all the effects of toxins on human health and I see that these things could be banned by the government but have not been, I have a hard time seeing how the government can really offer the public the right to a healthy environment.
The member's question was on the need to implement this. The answer is yes. I agree with her. It is necessary to do this, just as Quebec has done.
I want to come back to the importance of respecting what is already being done in Quebec. Environmental sovereignty is an extremely important concept. Yes, we want to do more for the environment across Canada. Since we sit here, we obviously want to improve environmental protection laws, but we also have to respect jurisdictions.
224 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 2:04:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, October 15 to 22 was public library week in Quebec, which is why I am so delighted to recognize the 10th anniversary of our new library, La bibliothèque Guy-Bélisle, which is located in Saint-Eustache, in my riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
After being inaugurated in October 2012, the library quickly became a cultural hub for our residents. Our library can boast about 2.8 million book loans and 1.3 million visitors but, more importantly, it serves to nourish the dreams, culture and curiosity of an entire community. This library is a remarkable asset that enriches the lives of the people of Saint-Eustache.
I want to thank Monique Khouzam and Nicole Grimard, the chief librarians who have led this successful institution for 10 years. I also want to thank my friend Raymond Tessier, a municipal councillor in Saint-Eustache, who made this project possible.
Happy 10th anniversary.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 2:25:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the government wanted to help families with young children cope with inflation, it could simply have increased the Canada child benefit.
That would have been way too easy though, so it decided to write cheques to pay for dental care for kids 12 and under. Today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that this benefit discriminates against Quebec families. Children in Quebec will get half as much as children outside Quebec. Quebeckers have 23% of the children, yet they will get only 13% of the promised $700 million.
Will the government fix this so that its dental care benefit does not discriminate against families in Quebec?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 2:25:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the member for asking the question and pleased to have the opportunity to point out that children under the age of 10 and their families already have access to dental care in Quebec, but that the Government of Canada's additional investment complements the existing program, specifically in the area of prevention. Kids can get fluoride treatments, scaling, cleaning and preventive care for their gums.
All those services are now eligible for the Canada dental benefit, which, we hope, will get through committee and the Senate quickly.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 2:26:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like things to be really complicated. If they wanted to help families, they could have increased supports to families, but no, that is too simple. If they wanted to help with dental care, they could have reached an agreement with Quebec and transferred money, but no, that is too simple.
Instead, they came up with this dental cheque scheme. Why is that? It is not because they wanted to do something simple or effective. It was because they wanted to please the NDP to keep their majority in Parliament. They did not really want dental insurance; they wanted majority insurance, paid for by taxpayers. Will the Liberals at least modify their majority insurance to make sure it does not discriminate against Quebeckers?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 2:28:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we all very much appreciate what the member just said. We are all feeling it, in the hospitals and in the health care services in Quebec and elsewhere. This is a terrible situation. We are in crisis because health care workers are in crisis and are exhausted. They have left the profession in droves. Many are sick, and many are considering leaving.
That is why, over the past few months, we have invested an additional $2 billion in increasing the Canada health transfer to cut down the backlog of diagnostics and surgeries. We have invested another $1 billion to take care of the people and workers in long term care. If I get to answer another question, I will add more details about the investments we plan to make.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 2:35:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are all Canadians and we are all proud of our country. As Canadians, we have one indisputable thing in common: We all have to keep warm in winter. It is not a luxury, it is a necessity for Canadians.
This government wants to increase the Liberal tax on carbon. In Quebec, many people heat their homes with propane. Families, business owners and farmers need propane.
Does the government believe that it is a really good idea to increase the Liberal tax on carbon when inflation is raging and winter is coming?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we have a plan to address the problem at the border. Our Bill C‑21 increases penalties for criminals and gives law enforcement new tools. We will also work with the Province of Quebec by transferring federal funds.
Finally, we have a very good partnership with the United States to disrupt criminal networks and stop illegal gun traffickers.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 2:53:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank not only my colleague, but also every organization in Quebec and elsewhere that is fighting to ensure that people can live a healthy life in an environment that is protected.
We acknowledge that there are obstacles to accessing this information because of confidentiality laws.
We also know that the Canadian government announced last year that the law would be reviewed in order to ensure, as the member was saying, greater transparency, better access to reliable scientific information and more openness on such important issues.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 3:03:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, many Quebeckers, especially those living in rural areas, heat their homes with oil, whose price has doubled since last year. Many Canadian and Quebec families must make tough choices in order to cover the costs of food and housing, in addition to paying their heating bill, because people in Quebec and Canada have no choice.
With winter quickly approaching, we are asking the government to do one simple thing, and that is to cancel the carbon tax on home heating bills. Will it do that?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 4:51:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. It is always interesting to hear our colleagues from Quebec share Quebec's vision. Quebec has long been a leader in the fight against climate change and environmental conservation.
In my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, as well as in the neighbouring riding, the protection of endangered species is a very important issue. Five or six years ago, the federal government was asked to intervene to protect an endangered species, the tiny chorus frog.
Does my colleague think it is important for the federal government to be able to intervene like this from time to time?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 4:53:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague of the supremacy of the provinces', and therefore Quebec's, environmental legislation.
This being said, there is something I always find somewhat bizarre in certain fundamental environmental debates. I am thinking in particular about Gazoduq's GNL Quebec project. In Quebec, the general public, the media and members of Parliament were more concerned about the possible impact on the fjord's whales than the possible impact on people's health.
I think we need to think about this and make human health a priority when we undertake environmental or industrial projects.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 4:53:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member mentioned that, in his opinion, the provinces have priority when the matter affects their territory directly. It is important to understand that, on this side of the House, we respect provincial jurisdiction.
Last week, the Minister of the Environment severely condemned a project that is 100% under provincial jurisdiction. He even said that he was going to conduct an investigation, when there are already environmental investigations under way. This involves the third link.
The official opposition severely condemned the Liberal minister's remarks, saying that it was a bad habit among Liberals to meddle in affairs that do not concern them and to lecture the provinces, suggesting that the people in Ottawa are better informed than the people in Quebec. This is not true at all.
We think that Quebec has full authority over environmental matters when it comes to the third link. Does my colleague agree?
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 4:54:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his question. It will be interesting to see what project the Quebec government proposes.
I think that the Quebec government's expectation is very clear: The federal government should provide financial support and nothing else. The decisions must be made by and for the provinces.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 4:57:07 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, we are here in the House to discuss Bill S-5, or the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. This bill originated in the Senate this time, and it is being sponsored by Quebec Senator Marc Gold. We are at second reading stage.
Bill S‑5 seeks to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which dates back to 1999 and is commonly referred to as CEPA. This act would replace the Food and Drugs Act and repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act. This bill, which is not a complete overhaul of CEPA, seeks to amend CEPA in order to recognize the right to a healthy environment, consider vulnerable populations and the cumulative effects that may result from exposure to toxic substances, create a system for regulating toxic substances, and create a system for assessing and managing the risks that drugs pose to the environment.
Of course, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of Bill S‑5.
I would like to remind members that the Bloc Québécois believes that the Quebec nation is the sole authority over public decisions regarding the environment and the Quebec territory.
Until we achieve independence, however, certain environmental protection responsibilities fall to the federal government under the current legal framework. It is clear that the legislation needs to be modernized. There has not been an update in more than 20 years, since 1999.
Canada has fallen very far behind other nations. No one is surprised, really. Canada has never managed to meet a single climate target and is lagging far behind the rest of the world in the fight against climate change. I am not surprised that Canada has such outdated environmental legislation. It is unfortunate and sad, but that is how it is.
In 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development published a report containing 87 recommendations. One of those recommendations was to recognize the right to a healthy environment. Let us not be fooled, however. The Bloc Québécois did not fail to notice the partisan claims inserted into Bill S‑5.
Elements pertaining to the right to a healthy environment are found in CEPA's preamble, but their scope remains very limited. This means that they have no impact on other Canadian laws. While the bill would add the protection of this right to the federal government's mission, the proposed amendments would not necessarily create a true fundamental right to live in a healthy environment. To have a real impact, this right would have to be entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 2006, Quebec introduced the right to a healthy environment in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.” This right was entrenched in our laws in Quebec in 2006.
In Quebec's political context, the Quebec charter, unlike CEPA, is quasi-constitutional in scope, no matter what our colleagues from other parties believe. Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect Quebeckers' fundamental rights.
Over a year ago, on October 8, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council recognized that having a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right and called on “States around the world to work together, and with other partners, to implement this newly recognized right”.
In a statement, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights “called on States to take bold actions to give prompt and real effect to the right to a healthy environment”.
Over 100 countries have already recognized this right constitutionally, while Canada is just getting around to including it in a law that does not have any real scope. That is not surprising coming from a country that is addicted to oil and gas, but it is obviously very disappointing. It is not surprising, but it is disappointing.
Enshrining the right to a healthy environment in law is a good first step, and the Bloc Québécois welcomes that. That is why we will support Bill S-5.
Bill S‑5 contains a number of technical aspects that should be carefully examined by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This modernization should truly enable the government to fulfill its environmental protection responsibilities while respecting Quebec's sovereignty over vulnerable populations, chemical management, the list of toxic substances, the strengthening of risk management accountability, the overall assessment of the cumulative effects of substances, and mandatory labelling requirements.
The Bloc Québécois wants to work with all parliamentarians so that the repealed act reflects the recommendations of health and environmental protection groups and chemical industry partners as well as possible.
For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be vigilant in studying this bill.
850 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 5:05:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, we must work together, that is for certain. As we know, the environment is very important to us in Quebec, and we are ahead of the curve, as my colleague mentioned earlier in a question to one of my colleagues. We are very aware of this issue. Perhaps it is in our genes, but we are highly aware.
In 2006, Quebec passed legislation similar to the bill we are discussing in the House today. Clearly Quebec is interested. Clearly Quebec will co-operate. Until we become independent, we are part of Canada.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 5:08:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on something. If Quebec were a sovereign state, how far could it go in protecting and strengthening the environment and a healthy Quebec?
34 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 5:31:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague, who is now the environment critic. That is a big file, so bravo.
I was listening to him earlier and I was reminded of Bill C-225, which I introduced in 2020 and which gave Quebec precedence with respect to environmental assessments. My Conservative colleagues' penchant for oil is rather troubling. If there were ever an oil or gas pipeline project that did not suit Quebec, I wonder whether my colleague would agree that Quebec's prerogative should be respected.
Earlier he said that he had confidence in Quebec and in Quebec's legislation regarding the third link. I remember a Conservative project involving an energy corridor. Should that energy corridor be subject to Quebec's environmental assessments? If that did not work, would my colleague agree that Quebec's rules and laws take precedence over—
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
